[Case Information] This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation of Head of Management Support Department).” Date of Decision: 2026-07-31 · Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae1869 Key Issue Summary: (a). 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee hired as Head of the Management Support Department was refused regular employment during the probationary period on the grounds of the probationary evaluation and problems with work attitude. The employee filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, which was contested before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined whether the refusal of regular employment constituted unfair dismissal, based on the probation provisions in the rules of employment and the actual course of evaluation and guidance. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are whether an experienced managerial hire can be regarded as a probationary (trial) employee where the rules of employment stipulate a probationary period, and whether refusal of regular employment on grounds such as lack of job competence and workplace bullying constitutes a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Standards Act that is reasonable in light of social norms. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case held that the employee fell under the category of a probationary (trial) employee, given that the rules of employment provided for a three‑month probationary period from the first working day for newly hired employees, and that the employee himself acknowledged that he was a probationary employee. The Commission further found that: the employee repeatedly received feedback on his OJT mission results that “overall logical development is lacking, and it is questionable whether sufficient review has been conducted regarding R&R”; acts of workplace bullying against staff were established and he engaged in inappropriate conduct for a manager, such as using an electronic cigarette indoors; he failed to comply with the sick leave application procedures set out in the rules of employment; immediately after applying for sick leave, he returned his work laptop after deleting all data; his probationary evaluation score fell significantly short of the required standard; and the employer notified him in writing of the reasons for and timing of the refusal of regular employment. Taking all of these circumstances into account, the Commission held that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal of regular employment and that there were no procedural defects. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that even if the term “probation” is used at the time of hiring, they may in substance be regarded as probationary (trial) employees if the rules of employment or similar documents explicitly provide a structure for evaluating whether to grant regular employment. During the probationary period, not only job competence but also matters relating to character and attitude—such as workplace bullying, violations of internal regulations, and management of company assets—are broadly evaluated. The more senior the position, the more carefully one should review the relevant rules and manage each and every action accordingly. In addition, if you violate the procedures under the rules of employment in areas such as applying for sick leave or managing company equipment and data, such conduct may not be viewed as a mere mistake but may be evaluated as a factor undermining the relationship of trust. It is therefore important to strictly comply with written application and reporting procedures. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) Employers should clearly set out provisions on probation and trial employment for newly hired employees in their rules of employment, and, in the actual hiring process, sufficiently inform employees of the existence of such provisions and of the criteria for evaluation and regular employment. During the probationary period, employers should keep written or electronic records of OJT missions, work feedback, workplace bullying investigations, violations of company rules, probationary evaluation scores, and similar matters, so that they can objectively demonstrate that the reasons for refusing regular employment are directly linked to job suitability and work attitude. Furthermore, although refusal of regular employment for probationary employees is more broadly recognized as justified than ordinary disciplinary dismissal, it still constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Employers must therefore bear in mind that, unless at least the rationality of the grounds, reasonableness in light of social norms, and minimum procedural fairness (including timing and method of notice) are satisfied, such refusal may be found to be an unfair dismissal. In disputes involving this type of probation and trial employment, the key to addressing the issues lies in accurately understanding Supreme Court precedents and the legal principles of the Labor Relations Commission on the establishment of probationary employment relationships and the standards for exercising the right to terminate, and in systematically organizing the facts in line with those principles. 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was decided that the employee fell under the category of a probationary (trial) employee and that there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment. 3. Summary of Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (a) Whether the employee was a probationary (trial) employee Article 7(1) of the rules of employment provides that newly hired employees shall be subject to a three‑month probationary period from the date they first commence work, and the employee acknowledged at the hearing that he was a probationary employee. Accordingly, he fell under the category of a probationary (trial) employee. (b) Whether the refusal of regular employment was justified (grounds and procedure) (1) In light of the fact that the employer sent the employee an email providing feedback on his OJT mission stating that “there is no mention of overall logical development, and it is necessary to check whether sufficient review has been conducted regarding R&R,” it appears that the employee failed to meet the level of job performance required by the employer for a Head of the Management Support Department; (2) acts of workplace bullying against staff were established, and he engaged in inappropriate conduct for a manager, such as using an electronic cigarette indoors; (3) he failed to comply with the sick leave application procedures prescribed in the rules of employment; (4) after applying for sick leave, he returned his work laptop after deleting all data; (5) he received a score in the employer’s probationary evaluation that fell significantly short of the required standard; and (6) the employer notified him in writing of the reasons for and timing of the refusal of regular employment. Taking all of these circumstances together, the Commission found that there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment and that there were no defects in the procedure for refusal of regular employment. [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Interest in Relief and Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation of Head of Management Support Department), dismissal during probation, workplace bullying, violation of company policy · noncompliance with work instructions, performance evaluation · poor performance, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong‑dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm ※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dispute Over Existence of Dismissal (Statement to Make Employee Resign)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to refusal of regular employment after probation (probationary evaluation of Head of Management Support Department) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Relating to Refusal of Regular Employment After Probation (Probationary Evaluation of Head of Management Support Department).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article